For the workgroup members, the discussion in the apache forum is
happening right here:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53845
In order to not decentralize the discussion, I propose to continue the
discussion right here on this forum.
> Roy T. Fielding 2012-09-09 21:54:35 UTC
> Jonathan is incorrect. A dialog box presented to the user with a
> preselected option of "on" does not qualify as a default of "unset",
> nor do the > Express settings of IE10.0 qualify as a preference for
> privacy (read them and see). The working group is not a judicial branch
> -- it will not
> sit around forever adjudicating whether a given implementation
> complies or not, and nobody has ever claimed that the standard requires
> servers
> ignore invalid signals. Apache chose to do so because the signal is
> meaningless if it is set by default, and it is harmful to deployment of
> DNT, to the Web, and to the open standards process if we allow such
> deliberate abuse to be propagated downstream.
The timing of the patch is very poor and seriously undermines the
outcome of a above all, a meaningful standard. It forces the group to
accommodate disregarding of Non-Compliant Servers by third parties. The
consequence may very well be that a third party, operating an Apache
webserver can not claim W3C-DNT compliance if he drops a DNT signal.
I propose text in the TPE in chapter 3 that is clear enough, for
example:
"Implementations of HTTP that are not under control of the user,
including Web Servers, MUST not drop or modify a tracking preference".
If issues needs to be (re)opened to hash out DNT decision made on
servers, I ask the chairs to do so.
Rob
Rob van Eijk schreef op 2012-09-11 20:50:
> Roy,
>
> I guess if I change my User Agent to a default IE10 string while
> surfing the web within Firefox, Apache drops that DNT as well. (for
> instance with a useragent switching add-on).
>
> Is that a correct observation?
>
> Rob
>
> Roy T. Fielding schreef op 2012-09-11 19:59:
>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the "unset" operation in apached config doesn't change
>>> DNT from 1 to 0 but instead strips the DNT part of the header out
>>> entirely. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. best, Joe
>>
>> That is correct. It leaves the message in the same state it would
>> have
>> been before IE tried (and failed) to implement DNT, and adds an
>> environment variable for further processing if desired.
>>
>> ....Roy